It’s a fun read, actually. One worth a few moments of your time. Over at the Google Blog Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President of Product Management, defines what Google means by an open system, and lays out an argument for why open systems “win”.

Rosenberg starts with a definition of an open system. An open system has open technology and open information. Open technology consists of two parts: (1) open source: the release and active support of code; and (2) open standards: adherence to accepted standards, where they exist, and creation of such standards where they do not. Open information, says Rosenberg, is “when we have information about users we use it to provide something that is valuable to them, we are transparent about what information we have about them, and we give them ultimate control over their information.”

Rosenberg structures his support for open source by noting that closed systems, the current model, stymies innovation, harms the industry, and shafts consumers. Such a system, Rosenberg says, creates a competitive advantage by making a product popular, then “milking it” through its product life cycle. All you can expect to see is incremental change, rather than true innovation. Because customers are viewed as ‘captives’, Rosenberg argues that complacency sets in: “If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't.”

What’s open source have to offer? Rosenberg says three things: innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers. If no single entity has ownership of an idea, then any number of competing solutions can be had. Each new innovation adds to the collective wealth of the industry, which in turn promotes more innovation. Ultimately, consumers are benefitted by this continually churning process of making and offering ‘better’ products or services.

One way to parse Rosenberg’s thesis is to consider the National Football League (NFL). The NFL is careful in the management of inter-team competition, through the use of rules and revenue sharing, so that no team dominates the others, such as the New York Yankees do in Major League Baseball. Overall, all teams ‘profit’ from this relatively even competitive balance. (For example, the Arizona Cardinals appearing in the 2009 Super Bowl, and the New York Giants winning one in 2008.) Rather than manage the Internet in the same way, Rosenberg argues that an open environment will produce the same outcome. And while the process may be “chaotic”, it will also be “profitable” for those who understand it and move well within it.

 

Image Credit: helloromeo/Flickr

Tagged with: • • • • • • •

Filed under: News

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!